swisstopo_get_oereb_extract

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the constraint that a supported canton is required, which is useful but not a major behavioral disclosure. It does not mention response format or error handling, but the output schema covers the return structure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, with the core purpose in the first sentence and supplementary information in clearly labeled XML tags (<use_case>, <important_notes>). No wasted words; the structure aids parsing and scannability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description provides essential usage context: purpose, when to use vs. an alternative, and a key prerequisite. Combined with the annotations and a rich input schema, it is nearly complete. However, it does not mention any edge cases (e.g., unsupported canton behavior) or response size limits, so a slight deduction applies.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool description does not discuss parameters, but the input schema independently provides rich descriptions for all four fields (egrid, canton, lang, topics) with examples and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Ruft öffentlich-rechtliche Eigentumsbeschränkungen (ÖREB) für ein Grundstück (EGRID) ab.' This is a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes from siblings by noting that coordinate-based lookups should use swisstopo_oereb_at.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The use_case explicitly defines when to use this tool ('ÖREB-Auszug zu einem bereits bekannten EGRID') and directs users starting from a coordinate to an alternative sibling tool. It also adds a prerequisite ('Erfordert einen unterstützten Kanton'), providing clear decision guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.